There may well be more to the names we afford our beloved pets than first meets the eye, however before you get too upbeat this isn’t necessarily good news. Especially not, if you decided to christen your canine pal, ‘Bruno, Cassie’ or ‘Jake’.
Owners of pets with these names (amongst the 7 others which comprise a list of popular monikers we bless our four-legged friends with) typically end up pursuing pet insurance claims on a significantly more regular basis than those who opt for titles such as, ‘Luna, Olly’ and ‘Skye’.
But don’t just take our word for it, as these are the findings of the team over at PDSA Petsurance, who recently undertook a little research of their own to see if any clear patterns had formed; and essentially whether or not some pets turned out to be unluckier than other purely because of their names.
The fact of the matter (although not scientifically arrived at, of course) is that if you’ve chosen to call your pampered pooch (or feted feline) ‘Bruno’ then you best brace yourself for more than your/their fair share of bad luck coming your way. And that’s because Bruno is, apparently the unluckiest pet name here in the UK right now. And to prove a point, they’re a staggering 6 times more likely to be the subject of claims being pursued on pet insurance than those answering to the name of Luna, for example.
Taking into account pet insurance claims instigated by a range of accidents and illnesses befalling them, poor Bruno’s really are feeling hard done to of late according to the statistics plundered by the PDSA’s dedicated pet insurance arm.
Unscientifically Proven, Maybe, Yet Your Pet Might Have THE Unluckiest Name, According to Fact-unearthing Pet Insurer
He might have been named in doggie (or cat) homage to former Radio 1 DJ, Bruno Brookes or perhaps named after retired Boxing champ, Frank Bruno, but it matters not which ‘Bruno’ inspired you to attach the same moniker to your pet, as the end result is the same it would seem. And they’re not the only ones whose destinies are already mapped out due to owners’ unfortunate naming policies, as equally ill-fated are the hapless likes of Cassie, Henry, Tia and Buster, who themselves (and in whatever form and shape they take) are considered 5 times more prone to being cited in a pet insurance claim than their far luckier-named counterparts, Freddie, Coco and Paddy.
Obviously, aside from statistically-speaking, there’s no real thyme or reason why one named pet should suffer worse fortune than another, as the PDSA’s Director of Veterinary Services told a number of news sources of late.
Richard Hooker admitted; “It’s a mystery why pets named Bruno seem to have an unfair share of misfortune,” before adding; “The difference between their insurance claim rates and pets called Luna is baffling.”
Naturally Hooker concluded that irrespective of the name you adopt for your pet from the outset, arranging a suitable pet insurance cover will protect them from cradle to grave so to speak, and particularly so if and when they fall victim to an illness or injury which necessitates sizeable vet’s bills.
Habitually claims can range from traumatic injuries due to traffic accidents, falls and fighting, to the surgical removal of objects pets have consumed (think along the lines of tennis balls and socks for instance). Beneath is the full countdown of the top 10 unluckiest pet names, followed by the flip side of the destiny coin; namely the top 10 luckiest pet monikers.
Top 10 Unluckiest Pet Names;
Top 10 Luckiest Pet Names;